The United States continues to menace Iran. It is deploying naval armadas and additional military forces to the region to intimidate Tehran. Simultaneously, it aims to debilitate the country through economic sanctions and by lending support to domestic anti-government activities. However, it must not be forgotten that Iran\u2014no matter how weakened it may become\u2014possesses a state tradition, a profound institutional memory, an experienced military, and military technology that are incomparably stronger than those of Iraq or Syria.<\/p>\n
There are, of course, significant reasons for the United States\u2019 aggressive posture. In recent years, its influence\u2014both globally and in the Middle East\u2014has been waning; its hegemonic capacity is eroding, and its control over the strategic environment is weakening. The U.S. explicitly admitted as much in its defense strategy document released at the end of 2025. It no longer possesses the power to project force into every corner of the globe. It lacks the capacity to maintain occupying forces in two countries simultaneously. Yet, at the turn of the century, it did exactly that: occupying Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. It was capable of effecting regime change in three countries through “Color Revolutions”\u2014as seen in Georgia (2003), Ukraine (2004), and Kyrgyzstan (2005).<\/p>\n
The U.S. no longer commands such power. This decline is one of the drivers behind its fury and its emphasis on hard power. The U.S. failed to impede China\u2019s rise or prevent Russia from rapidly recovering and expanding its influence. Beyond the growing footprint of these two powers in the Middle East, Washington was also unable to prevent the strengthening of their relations with Iran. The U.S. could not replicate in Iran what it accomplished in Iraq and Syria. Indeed, doing so would be exceptionally difficult.<\/p>\n
For a considerable time, the U.S. has prioritized the containment of China, aligning its political, military, and diplomatic assets accordingly. Consequently, rather than intervening directly in Middle Eastern crises, it pushes its regional allies to the forefront. It demands that these allies seize the initiative. It prefers proxy wars, increasingly activating terrorist organizations and non-state actors. It resorts more frequently to social engineering, perception management, psychological warfare, hybrid warfare, and asymmetric warfare tactics. Its actions in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran, Yemen, and Sudan serve as proof of this shift.<\/p>\n
Iran was the regional actor that benefited most from the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Iranian influence in Syria was already deeply rooted historically. Furthermore, Iran distinguished itself through its anti-Israel stance and its tensions with Saudi Arabia. As a result, Iran steadily increased its influence in the Middle East for years, up until a few years ago.<\/p>\n
U.S. priorities in the Middle East<\/strong><\/p>\n The United States is an imperialist state. Therefore, its priorities regarding the Middle East are numerous and diverse, encompassing geopolitical, strategic, and economic dimensions, as well as aspects related to the region\u2019s rich energy resources and transit routes.<\/p>\n If one were to rank these priorities from the U.S. perspective, the security of Israel would always occupy the first position. Subsequent items would include the control of energy resources and routes, the encirclement of Iran, the reduction of Iranian influence, regime change in Tehran, the establishment of a Kurdish state, the rollback of China\u2019s increasing influence, the halting of Russia\u2019s growing weight, and the support of Saudi Arabia and the Arab nations it leads.<\/p>\n U.S. interest in Middle Eastern energy resources dates back more than a century. For instance, on May 31, 1919, the U.S. Department of State sent the following directive to all its diplomatic missions worldwide: “Wherever petroleum is found or is likely to be found, report on the status of control over those oil resources, prospects for development, and opportunities for U.S. participation in oil production there.” In other words, even then, the U.S. had set its sights on the Middle East, on Mesopotamia, and on the territories of the dismantling Ottoman Empire. On May 3, 1920, Bedford, an executive at Standard Oil of New Jersey, obtained the text of an agreement made on April 27 between France and Britain in San Remo to partition the oil in the aforementioned territories. He obtained this via French delegates in San Remo and transmitted the document to Washington through the U.S. embassy. Washington was furious. France was to receive a 25% share of Mesopotamian oil in exchange for its docility regarding British control. If the oil were to be operated by private companies, this share would remain 25%. Oil operated by private companies in this region would remain under permanent British control. It became clear that the U.S. had to act immediately to protect its rights in the Middle East. (Lawrence Evans, United States Policy and the Partition of T\u00fcrkiye, 1914-1924<\/em>, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1965).<\/p>\n When analyzing U.S. global and Middle East policies, the country’s imperialist character must always be taken into account. As an imperialist state, it seeks to access new markets and seize energy resources and precious minerals. Its priorities, threat definitions, objectives, and alliances are shaped accordingly. Looking at the post-World War II era, when the U.S. significantly increased its global weight, one observes the following: The bipolar order and the Cold War years had begun. Most colonies had gained their independence. Among these newly independent nations were countries exploited by Europeans since the 15th century, as well as those that had fallen under the sway of imperialism in the 19th century. These countries were not industrialized enough to be capitalist, nor did they possess a working class or class consciousness sufficient to adopt the socialist model. The majority of these countries were located in the Middle East and Africa.<\/p>\n During the Cold War, the U.S. viewed the USSR and communism as threats. It sought to prevent the development of anti-imperialist leftist currents and anti-imperialist nationalist movements within the Third World and among countries joining the Non-Aligned Movement. In the Middle East, the U.S. perceived Arab socialism\u2014distinguished by its nationalist, anti-imperialist, pro-independence, and leftist character\u2014as a threat. These movements in Arab countries were influenced by the tradition of the Committee of Union and Progress [CUP] in T\u00fcrkiye, Mustafa Kemal Atat\u00fcrk, and the Kemalist Revolution. The movement led by Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt in the 1950s (his name derives from Djemal Pasha, one of the leaders of the CUP) and the Ba’ath movement [meaning “Resurrection”] which rose with similar claims in Syria and Iraq (though there are differences between the Syrian and Iraqi Ba’ath movements), unsettled the U.S. during those years.<\/p>\n The establishment of close relations between these Arab movements and the USSR also alarmed the U.S. In response, Washington supported Islamist movements in these countries to counter them. The “Green Belt Project,” aimed at encircling the USSR with Islamist regimes in Muslim countries, was activated during this period. Through this project, brought to the agenda in 1977 by Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to U.S. President Jimmy Carter, Islamist currents were supported in T\u00fcrkiye, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Saudi-U.S. relations developed further, and the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan) in Egypt received significant support from the U.S.<\/p>\n Dimensions of U.S.-Iran tension<\/strong><\/p>\n With the overthrow of the pro-American Shah of Iran in 1979 as a result of the Iranian Islamic Revolution and the rise of Khomeini to power, the importance the U.S. attached to the Green Belt Project increased further. The U.S., which desired full alignment from the four countries within the scope of the Green Belt Project (T\u00fcrkiye, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan), lost its influence in Iran when the Islamic Revolution took place in 1979. Immediately thereafter, it incited Iraq against Iran. During the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), the Arab world (excluding Syria) and the West supported Iraq. The total loss of life for Iran and Iraq exceeded one million. The economies and industries of both countries suffered massive blows. Throughout the war, Western arms manufacturers sold vast quantities of weapons to both belligerents, as well as to countries with close U.S. ties, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan, the UAE, and Bahrain.<\/p>\n Iran is one of the pivotal countries of the region. Encircling Iran and changing its regime are among the United States’ priorities. To this end, it has been applying economic sanctions for years. It isolates Iran politically and diplomatically. It threatens and pressures the country militarily. It attempts to obstruct Iran\u2019s nuclear activities. The U.S. views Iran as one of the greatest obstacles to a Kurdish state, which is intended to be established through the partitioning of four regional countries (Iraq, Syria, Iran, T\u00fcrkiye). Israel, one of the U.S.’s two strategic partners (the other being the UK), is also in a state of constant tension with Iran; in 2025, the two countries launched air attacks against one another for 12 days. The two states view each other as existential threats. In recent years, Israel has dealt heavy blows to Iranian-backed Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon. The regime change in Syria and the increasing influence of the U.S. and Israel over Damascus constitute a major defeat for Iran.<\/p>\n The U.S. is also attempting to block Iran\u2019s oil exports. It imposes sanctions\u2014or threatens to impose them\u2014on countries that trade with Iran. It has designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization and pressured the European Union to adopt a similar decision. The U.S. also pressures Egypt and Saudi Arabia to keep their distance from Iran, forcing the Gulf countries led by Saudi Arabia to take a stance against Tehran.<\/p>\n Will U.S. sanctions against Iran achieve their objective?<\/strong><\/p>\n Iran has lost significant influence following the overthrow of Assad in Syria\u2014a country where it had invested and provided massive support for years\u2014and the successive blows dealt by Israel to Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Iranian-backed “Shiite Crescent,” the “Axis of Resistance,” and Iran\u2019s proxy forces beyond its borders have suffered heavy losses. Currently, only the Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen continue their struggle.<\/p>\n The sanctions and economic embargoes the U.S. has applied since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, its efforts to incite the public to rebellion against the regime, and its attempts to render PJAK (the Iranian extension of the PKK terrorist organization) more effective, have not yet yielded the hoped-for results. While attempting to encircle Iran, the U.S. has also sought to weaken it through proxy wars. Yet, following the U.S. occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran actually increased its influence in the region.<\/p>\n U.S. economic sanctions have been effective; they have hindered Iran\u2019s technological development and dragged down its oil and natural gas exports. However, they have thus far failed to bring Iran to its knees. Poverty, unemployment, the high cost of living, corruption, and repression within the country have fueled anger toward the regime. Nevertheless, it has been observed that when faced with foreign intervention, the Iranian people set aside their grievances and ideological differences to defend their country against external threats. Furthermore, possessing nuclear deterrence is a goal upon which different political views in the country converge and agree.<\/p>\n In conclusion, Iran is a country with a strong state tradition and deep historical accumulation. It utilizes Persian nationalism, the Islamic Revolution, Shi’ism, anti-Americanism, anti-imperialist rhetoric, and enmity toward Zionism and Israel in its foreign policy\u2014deploying each at the right place, at the right time, in the right dose, and according to the interlocutor. Even if Iran has taken heavy blows in recent years, the influence it has achieved as a regional actor, its alliance relations, military power, state structure, and national culture remain significant. One must not forget that despite anti-regime opposition and significant problems on the domestic front, Iran will resist the U.S., and even in the worst-case scenario, it remains a state incomparably stronger than Syria or Iraq.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The United States continues to menace Iran. It is deploying naval armadas and additional military forces to the region to intimidate Tehran. Simultaneously, it aims to debilitate the country through economic sanctions and by lending support to domestic anti-government activities. However, it must not be forgotten that Iran\u2014no matter how weakened it may become\u2014possesses a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":55,"featured_media":13535,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"gallery","meta":{"ep_exclude_from_search":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[16356,319,288,516,812,950,315,679,531,409,1192,957],"class_list":["post-13534","post","type-post","status-publish","format-gallery","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-opinion","tag-arab-world","tag-donald-trump","tag-iran","tag-iraq","tag-israel","tag-middle-east","tag-pakistan","tag-saudi-arabia","tag-syria","tag-turkiye","tag-united-states","tag-world-war-ii","post_format-post-format-gallery"],"yoast_head":"\n